If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

HI,
I'm trying to get my feet wet with html/dhtml and have run into a problem.

I have a web page that uses style="position:absolute; z-index:1; Top:50px;
Left:100px;....." to position three graphics on the screen. The graphics use
z-index:1 to z-index:5 to 'overlay' them.

I also use <div
style="position:absolute;z-index:6;top:10px;left:150px;....."> to position
text text above and to the right of the graphics where I put the 'content'
verbiage. The graphics form sort of a border to the left and bottom of this
'content' text.

Anyway, this works great in IE but falls apart in Netscape 4.74. Can someone
point me in the right direction for positioning graphics, text and
<div></div> tags in the browser so they don't move that will work with IE
and Netscape?

Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

In article <39ff12a0$1@news.devx.com>, barry@seacom.com says...
> I have a web page that uses style="position:absolute; z-index:1; Top:50px;
> Left:100px;....." to position three graphics on the screen. The graphics use
> z-index:1 to z-index:5 to 'overlay' them.
>
> I also use <div
> style="position:absolute;z-index:6;top:10px;left:150px;....."> to position
> text text above and to the right of the graphics where I put the 'content'
> verbiage. The graphics form sort of a border to the left and bottom of this
> 'content' text.
>
> Anyway, this works great in IE but falls apart in Netscape 4.74. Can someone
> point me in the right direction for positioning graphics, text and
> <div></div> tags in the browser so they don't move that will work with IE
> and Netscape?

Netscape 4.x does not fully support DHTML. In fact, it barely supports
any DHTML at all, and does NOT support absolute positioning. You're out
of luck with Netscape 4.x.

If you *have* to have Netscape support, wait for version 6.x. It's
supposed to have much better support of DHTML.

Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

Thanks Patrick. I knew that was going to be the answer but kept seeing
references to Netscape supporting DHTML. Suckered again <g>.

"Patrick Steele" <patrick@neovisionsystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1468f2ef4049f107989694@news.devx.com...
> In article <39ff12a0$1@news.devx.com>, barry@seacom.com says...
> > I have a web page that uses style="position:absolute; z-index:1;
Top:50px;
> > Left:100px;....." to position three graphics on the screen. The graphics
use
> > z-index:1 to z-index:5 to 'overlay' them.
> >
> > I also use <div
> > style="position:absolute;z-index:6;top:10px;left:150px;....."> to
position
> > text text above and to the right of the graphics where I put the
'content'
> > verbiage. The graphics form sort of a border to the left and bottom of
this
> > 'content' text.
> >
> > Anyway, this works great in IE but falls apart in Netscape 4.74. Can
someone
> > point me in the right direction for positioning graphics, text and
> > <div></div> tags in the browser so they don't move that will work with
IE
> > and Netscape?
>
> Netscape 4.x does not fully support DHTML. In fact, it barely supports
> any DHTML at all, and does NOT support absolute positioning. You're out
> of luck with Netscape 4.x.
>
> If you *have* to have Netscape support, wait for version 6.x. It's
> supposed to have much better support of DHTML.
>
> --
> Patrick Steele
> (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
> http://www.neovisionsystems.com
> Microsoft MCP

Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

Nonsense! DHTML started with Netscape. They invented the syntax.

IE created their own syntax (sin tax?) but don't offer much of the functionality
of NS.
IE has some strong weaknesses (oxymorons fit IE very well).
Simpler code but, oh so slow, execution!
Try creating an array of images and writing them to individual image SRCs.
You'll discover a new meaning to the word "slow".

Just to see how far you can go with Netscape DHTML try the following two examples:

( IE doesn't have these dynamic DHTML features).

- dragging and dropping images using the attached "dropthumbsintoNN.htm"
- watch the browser change in appearance using "BrowserChangesNSgood.htm"

Patrick Steele wrote:
> In article <39ff12a0$1@news.devx.com>, barry@seacom.com says...
> > I have a web page that uses style="position:absolute; z-index:1; Top:50px;
> > Left:100px;....." to position three graphics on the screen. The graphics use
> > z-index:1 to z-index:5 to 'overlay' them.
> >
> > I also use <div
> > style="position:absolute;z-index:6;top:10px;left:150px;....."> to position
> > text text above and to the right of the graphics where I put the 'content'
> > verbiage. The graphics form sort of a border to the left and bottom of this
> > 'content' text.
> >
> > Anyway, this works great in IE but falls apart in Netscape 4.74. Can someone
> > point me in the right direction for positioning graphics, text and
> > <div></div> tags in the browser so they don't move that will work with IE
> > and Netscape?
>
> Netscape 4.x does not fully support DHTML. In fact, it barely supports
> any DHTML at all, and does NOT support absolute positioning. You're out
> of luck with Netscape 4.x.
>
> If you *have* to have Netscape support, wait for version 6.x. It's
> supposed to have much better support of DHTML.
>
> --
> Patrick Steele
> (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
> http://www.neovisionsystems.com
> Microsoft MCP

Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

In article <3A011296.8143C8B6@inter.net.il>, avronp@inter.net.il says...
> Nonsense! DHTML started with Netscape. They invented the syntax.
>
> IE created their own syntax (sin tax?) but don't offer much of the functionality
> of NS.

Hardly...
> IE has some strong weaknesses (oxymorons fit IE very well).
> Simpler code but, oh so slow, execution!
> Try creating an array of images and writing them to individual image SRCs.
> You'll discover a new meaning to the word "slow".
>
> Just to see how far you can go with Netscape DHTML try the following two examples:
>
> ( IE doesn't have these dynamic DHTML features).
>
> - dragging and dropping images using the attached "dropthumbsintoNN.htm"
> - watch the browser change in appearance using "BrowserChangesNSgood.htm"

DHTML may have started with Netscape, but they dropped the ball. IE has
a way better DOM with much more capability to create robust, interactive
web pages.

My area of work involves creating web applications -- my customers want
browser-based applications that look similar to their desktop versions.
There's no way I can do that with Netscape:

- it doesn't support absolute positioning
- it can't dynamically create a table and place it in the middle of the
page
- once that table is there, I can't add/delete rows at will

The list goes on and on. Netscape's current rendering engine is the
same one they've been using since 1.0. It's a static engine that
doesn't support changes in the middle of the page. The page will NOT
reflow with the changes. That's why there is no Netscape 5.x. They
planned on using the same, outdated rendering engine in Netscape 5 and
the Netscape community threw a fit. They new the engine couldn't
compete with IE's DHTML support. So, Netscape threw away the old engine
and started new (Gecko).

So, there's a chance Netscape can make a decent browser that (fully)
supports DHTML. But it's an uphill battle. Everyone knows Netscape's
use is dwindling down towards the single digit percentage points. And
now with AOL owning it and much of the original engineers gone, it's
almost certainly a dead horse.

Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

I write extensive imaging applications on the Internet and all of the features you say
are not available are definitely available in NS.

Neither NS's or IEs DOM has been vindicated by W3C that's why both are now releasing
browsers with the
universally defined DOM for browsers. NS6 and IE5.5 are both trying to get there with
different degrees of success.

Patrick Steele wrote:
> In article <3A011296.8143C8B6@inter.net.il>, avronp@inter.net.il says...
> > Nonsense! DHTML started with Netscape. They invented the syntax.
> >
> > IE created their own syntax (sin tax?) but don't offer much of the functionality
> > of NS.
>
> Hardly...
>
> > IE has some strong weaknesses (oxymorons fit IE very well).
> > Simpler code but, oh so slow, execution!
> > Try creating an array of images and writing them to individual image SRCs.
> > You'll discover a new meaning to the word "slow".
> >
> > Just to see how far you can go with Netscape DHTML try the following two examples:
> >
> > ( IE doesn't have these dynamic DHTML features).
> >
> > - dragging and dropping images using the attached "dropthumbsintoNN.htm"
> > - watch the browser change in appearance using "BrowserChangesNSgood.htm"
>
> DHTML may have started with Netscape, but they dropped the ball. IE has
> a way better DOM with much more capability to create robust, interactive
> web pages.
>
> My area of work involves creating web applications -- my customers want
> browser-based applications that look similar to their desktop versions.
> There's no way I can do that with Netscape:
>
> - it doesn't support absolute positioning
>> FALSE - They were the first to implement it. I allow users to drag their images
around the page using both browsers.
Can only be done with absolute positioning. NS requires DIVs to have an ID defined
in the css.
From there everything goes smoothely.
>
> - it can't dynamically create a table and place it in the middle of the
> page
>> Ditto! AS above
>
> - once that table is there, I can't add/delete rows at will
>> Can do - Just keep it in a DIV rewrite it. Sure it's different syntax from IE. But MS
didn't yet invent English
(although they've probably tried to take a patent out on it).
>
> The list goes on and on.
>> THE LIST ONLY GOES ON ONLY if you didn't know how to do it in the first place!!
I'm no great fan of either browser and am not trying to advocate Netscape.
I just think fairness is required
> Netscape's current rendering engine is the
> same one they've been using since 1.0. It's a static engine that
> doesn't support changes in the middle of the page. The page will NOT
> reflow with the changes. That's why there is no Netscape 5.x. They
> planned on using the same, outdated rendering engine in Netscape 5 and
> the Netscape community threw a fit. They new the engine couldn't
> compete with IE's DHTML support. So, Netscape threw away the old engine
> and started new (Gecko).
>> AND MS is also discarding it's DOM in favor of w3c standards.
>
> So, there's a chance Netscape can make a decent browser that (fully)
> supports DHTML. But it's an uphill battle. Everyone knows Netscape's
> use is dwindling down towards the single digit percentage points.
>> COULD be true. I suggest looking at some of the really good browsers competing with
both IE and NS.
I wonder if either of them have such a bright future with such competition. The
other browsers are targeted
to large niche markets which they could well capture.
- NeoPlanet for Multimedia
- Enigma: Lightning fast for database access (and miniscule in size)
- Opera: A delight
and many others

And they all have their own DOMS

> And
> now with AOL owning it and much of the original engineers gone, it's
> almost certainly a dead horse.
>
> --
> Patrick Steele
> (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
> http://www.neovisionsystems.com
> Microsoft MCP

Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

In article <3A0271AA.AC1ED23D@inter.net.il>, avronp@inter.net.il says...
> I write extensive imaging applications on the Internet and all of the features you say
> are not available are definitely available in NS.

Only partially -- and it's a hack. DIV's littered all over the place.
Re-writing an entire table to update one row. Sorry -- you may "get
those features", but they are not robust enough for serious web
applications.
> Neither NS's or IEs DOM has been vindicated by W3C that's why both are now releasing
> browsers with the
> universally defined DOM for browsers. NS6 and IE5.5 are both trying to get there with
> different degrees of success.

I agree neither one has been officially adopted by the W3C. And I also
agree IE has done a lot of proprietary stuff. However, Netscape hasn't
even tried to keep up. Even if they would have come up with their own
standard (different than IE's), we could at least have similar control
in both browsers. Instead, they let 4.x sit there and grow old...
> > - it doesn't support absolute positioning
>
> >> FALSE - They were the first to implement it. I allow users to drag their images
> around the page using both browsers.
> Can only be done with absolute positioning. NS requires DIVs to have an ID defined
> in the css.
> From there everything goes smoothely.

Ok, I need to litter my form with DIV's to get the positioning. And I
need to defined a custom class to get the position? Why can't I just:

Much cleaner and -- since a lot of people still access the Internet via
a modem -- much less bandwidth since I don't need to wrap a bunch of
<DIV> tags around everything.

> > - once that table is there, I can't add/delete rows at will
>
> >> Can do - Just keep it in a DIV rewrite it. Sure it's different syntax from IE. But MS
> didn't yet invent English
> (although they've probably tried to take a patent out on it).

It's clear you have a true hatred for IE and aren't looking at the
issues objectively. Your solution, again, requires a DIV and re-writing
of the entire table! I have a 30 row grid with 6 columns. Adding one
row requires an entire re-write of the table?! Hack!

> > The list goes on and on.
>
> >> THE LIST ONLY GOES ON ONLY if you didn't know how to do it in the first place!!
> I'm no great fan of either browser and am not trying to advocate Netscape.
> I just think fairness is required

Agreed. Netscape may be able to partially support some of the things I
brought up, but it's kludgy, requires a lot of re-building of the form,
takes up a lot more bandwidth and has limited functionality when the
page needs to reflow.
>
> > Netscape's current rendering engine is the
> > same one they've been using since 1.0. It's a static engine that
> > doesn't support changes in the middle of the page. The page will NOT
> > reflow with the changes. That's why there is no Netscape 5.x. They
> > planned on using the same, outdated rendering engine in Netscape 5 and
> > the Netscape community threw a fit. They new the engine couldn't
> > compete with IE's DHTML support. So, Netscape threw away the old engine
> > and started new (Gecko).
>
> >> AND MS is also discarding it's DOM in favor of w3c standards.

I guess your biggest object about IE is now going away...
>
> >
> > So, there's a chance Netscape can make a decent browser that (fully)
> > supports DHTML. But it's an uphill battle. Everyone knows Netscape's
> > use is dwindling down towards the single digit percentage points.
>
> >> COULD be true.

Correction -- IS true. Check GIGA's or IDC's research. I'm not making
this stuff up.

Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

Ooh the Netscape vs IE battles. This reminds me of the good old days. I'm
not one to agree with either, but I do agree that IE makes the developers
life a lot easier. Netscape made a promise to its developer community
saying DHTML is the way of the future and then they just left them their to
die.

Anybody who says that you can do anything with Netscape that you can do with
IE is a masochist (sp??). There is no way you can do the same stuff but
that's ok, there is no way you can do the same stuff in Windows that you can
in Unix (like 99.9% up time).

I admit I am a fan of IE for the simple reason that I tried to make our site
Netscape 4.0 friendly. After a month of trying I simply gave up because I
had so many hacks in it to make it do what it needed to do that it was
simply not worth it. But...big but, I have been playing with Netscape 6.0
and the future is not over for Netscape (other then the fact that the look
is uglier then sin..is it me or does it look like a MAC??) . If they can
speed it up a bit, cause it's horribly slow, they can maybe put back some
competitiveness in this market. I am one developer who is fed up of being
an innocent bystander in the browser war. I will support the W3C standards
and I will bend over and do what needs be to make all my development W3C
compatible (when supporting browsers are common place) but never again will
I ever code something for a browser. I thought HTML was the way to get apps
to work on different platforms...but what good is it if all I can do is make
a static table? And I'll be damned if I write pages with 30 divs just to
place images in the correct places!

This said, you have to understand that most sites can be crossbrowser
compatible unless you need to write a **Web Application** at which point you
need to utilize every aspect of DHTML and IE offers a lot more then
Netscape. All the **Web Sites** we develop for our clients must be Cross
Browser and must support Netscape 4.

All that to say, you're both right but what's the point of arguing. IE vs
Netscape vs Opera vs nothing, at the end of the day you develop for one and
then try and make it work with the others. Chances are it won't and then
you just make a new similar page that will work with the others....of course
after losing 5 years of your life from stress!

Just my 2 cents but from the looks of it you guys got the 2 Dollar version
(sorry for the looooong post)...

--
Lee Amar
Chief Technology Officerwww.ostnet.com
OSTnet OpenSource Technologies Inclior@ostnet.com
OSTnet develops software and subcontracts much of the work to registered
developers over the Internet. Members of www.ostnet.com are free to view all
company projects open for tender (in the Projects section of the Developer
Home) and can apply to work on these projects. We prequalify all of our
members to determine their level and areas of expertise. Please feel free to
sign up at your leisure and write the exams in order to qualify yourself for
OSTnet projects.

"Patrick Steele" <patrick@neovisionsystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.146b3d59d5b2641f989699@news.devx.com...
> In article <3A011296.8143C8B6@inter.net.il>, avronp@inter.net.il says...
> > Nonsense! DHTML started with Netscape. They invented the syntax.
> >
> > IE created their own syntax (sin tax?) but don't offer much of the
functionality
> > of NS.
>
> Hardly...
>
> > IE has some strong weaknesses (oxymorons fit IE very well).
> > Simpler code but, oh so slow, execution!
> > Try creating an array of images and writing them to individual image
SRCs.
> > You'll discover a new meaning to the word "slow".
> >
> > Just to see how far you can go with Netscape DHTML try the following two
examples:
> >
> > ( IE doesn't have these dynamic DHTML features).
> >
> > - dragging and dropping images using the attached "dropthumbsintoNN.htm"
> > - watch the browser change in appearance using
"BrowserChangesNSgood.htm"
>
> DHTML may have started with Netscape, but they dropped the ball. IE has
> a way better DOM with much more capability to create robust, interactive
> web pages.
>
> My area of work involves creating web applications -- my customers want
> browser-based applications that look similar to their desktop versions.
> There's no way I can do that with Netscape:
>
> - it doesn't support absolute positioning
> - it can't dynamically create a table and place it in the middle of the
> page
> - once that table is there, I can't add/delete rows at will
>
> The list goes on and on. Netscape's current rendering engine is the
> same one they've been using since 1.0. It's a static engine that
> doesn't support changes in the middle of the page. The page will NOT
> reflow with the changes. That's why there is no Netscape 5.x. They
> planned on using the same, outdated rendering engine in Netscape 5 and
> the Netscape community threw a fit. They new the engine couldn't
> compete with IE's DHTML support. So, Netscape threw away the old engine
> and started new (Gecko).
>
> So, there's a chance Netscape can make a decent browser that (fully)
> supports DHTML. But it's an uphill battle. Everyone knows Netscape's
> use is dwindling down towards the single digit percentage points. And
> now with AOL owning it and much of the original engineers gone, it's
> almost certainly a dead horse.
>
> --
> Patrick Steele
> (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
> http://www.neovisionsystems.com
> Microsoft MCP